LINDA KASONDE: THE LAW CANNOT MATTER ONLY WHEN YOU ARE THE VICTIM
Linda Kasonde was reportedly defamed in a post on Twitter (X). She took a screenshot, threatened legal action, and the person responsible apologized.
That single incident was enough for her to recognize that words have consequences, that reputations deserve protection, and that the law must provide remedies to victims.
Yet I struggle to reconcile her reaction with her commentary surrounding Jay Jay Banda and the allegations of threats, intimidation, and abuse that many of us have endured over the years.
We have been insulted, threatened, defamed, and intimidated. In some instances, there is video evidence documenting the conduct in question.
It took just one Twitter statement for Linda Kasonde to feel aggrieved and demand accountability. Yet she appears unable to extend that same understanding to those of us who have endured far worse.
When she considers herself a victim, the law becomes an immediate instrument of protection. When we are the victims, suddenly the conversation shifts to procedures, technicalities, and endless questions about enforcement.
Of course, due process matters. Nobody should be denied their constitutional protections. But those protections must coexist with the rights of victims to seek justice.
What I find particularly troubling is the apparent inconsistency.
When she is the victim, she demands accountability. When we are the victims, she demands explanations.
I find it difficult to see how such an approach reflects a consistent commitment to jurisprudence, justice, or the rule of law.
The true test of one’s commitment to justice is not how vigorously one demands protection when personally offended. It is whether one is equally prepared to defend that protection when someone else is the victim.
The law cannot become urgent when it protects you and suddenly become complicated when it protects others.
Justice must be consistent. Otherwise, what we are defending is not principle, but selective outrage.
George N. Mtonga
WATCH-DOGS OR WITCH-HUNTERS? A Letter to Civil Society in Zambia
Dear Linda Kasonde and the 23 Others,
I must come out of my self-imposed muzzle to offer my deepest, most profound gratitude. Thank you for reminding the nation that the absolute pinnacle of human rights advocacy is ensuring that an escaped fugitive facing attempted murder charges can enjoy his vacation in Mozambique entirely undisturbed.
Your recent joint statement on the apprehension of Emmanuel “Jay Jay” Banda is a masterclass in straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Your dramatic hand-wringing is entirely ultra vires to common sense and hilariously ill-advised.
First, you are loudly weeping over the alleged violation of Mozambique’s sovereignty. There is just one tiny, embarrassing problem: the government in Maputo hasn’t complained. No diplomatic protests, no recalled ambassadors, no angry letters. Cross-border police cooperation is an actual legal framework, not a state-sponsored kidnapping. Let me put it bluntly: you listened to Emmanuel Mwamba’s latest bedtime stories and swallowed them hook, line, and sinker. For an elite coalition of legal minds and civic leaders, shouldn’t you find that level of gullibility a little shameful?
Second, your selective amnesia is breathtaking. You have successfully rebranded a man who broke out of lawful custody into a persecuted political darling. Where was this passionate, poetic energy for the actual victims of his alleged crimes? Where were the multi-signatory press releases when ordinary citizens and journalists were being terrorized? Your moral compass doesn’t point north; it points strictly toward political convenience.
Third, you ended your statement with a dramatic flourish, demanding he be brought before a court “if he is to be charged.” Let me whisper this gently into your ears, Linda: he was already charged. That is precisely why he was running! Demanding a legal process that is already actively underway proves you didn’t even bother to proofread your own script before rushing to the printers.
There is a massive difference between being a watchdog and going on a witch-hunt. A watchdog protects the public by sniffing out actual systemic excesses using objective facts. A witch-hunter blindly targets the state, invents ghosts of authoritarianism where none exist, and barks at the government simply for enforcing the law.
When you aggressively build a political shield around a fugitive just to score points against State House, you aren’t watch-dogging the system. You are just witch-hunting accountability. By cherry-picking which lawbreakers deserve your protection, you haven’t defended human rights with neutrality—you have just successfully auditioned for political partisanship.
Next time, save the donor-funded ink and let the courts do their job.
Yours faithfully,
Patrick Sikana
Disappointed Citizen